MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254188302 · doi:10.5194/acpd-13-1089-2013

A plume-in-grid approach to characterize air quality impacts of aircraft emissions at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

2013· preprint· en· W4254188302 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jeffrey Rissman, Saravanan Arunachalam, Matthew Woody, J. Jason West, Todd K. BenDor, Francis S. Binkowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTransport CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsCMAQPlumeAir quality indexEnvironmental scienceAtlantaMeteorologyTakeoffPollutantAtmospheric sciencesDeposition (geology)GridAerosolMetropolitan areaEngineeringGeographyAerospace engineeringChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study examined the impacts of aircraft emissions during the landing and takeoff cycle on PM2.5 concentrations during the months of June 2002 and July 2002 at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Primary and secondary pollutants were modeled using the Advanced Modeling System for Transport, Emissions, Reactions, and Deposition of Atmospheric Matter (AMSTERDAM). AMSTERDAM is a modified version of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model that incorporates a plume-in-grid process to simulate emissions sources of interest at a finer scale than can be achieved using CMAQ's model grid. Three fundamental issues were investigated: the effects of aircraft on PM2.5 concentrations throughout northern Georgia, the differences resulting from use of AMSTERDAM's plume-in-grid process rather than a traditional CMAQ simulation, and the concentrations observed in aircraft plumes at sub-grid scales. Comparison of model results with an air quality monitor located in the vicinity of the airport found that normalized mean bias ranges from −77.5% to 6.2% and normalized mean error ranges from 40.4% to 77.5%, varying by species. Aircraft influence average PM2.5 concentrations by up to 0.232 μg m−3 near the airport and by 0.001–0.007 μg m−3 throughout the Atlanta metro area. The plume-in-grid process increases concentrations of secondary PM pollutants by 0.005–0.020 μg m−3 (compared to the traditional grid-based treatment) but reduces the concentration of non-reactive primary PM pollutants by up to 0.010 μg m−3, with changes concentrated near the airport. Examination of sub-grid scale results indicates that puffs within 20 km of the airport often have average PM2.5 concentrations one order of magnitude higher than aircraft contribution to the grid cells containing those puffs, and within 1–4 km of emitters, puffs may have PM2.5 concentrations 3 orders of magnitude greater than the aircraft contribution to their grid cells. 21% of all aircraft-related puffs from the Atlanta airport have at least 0.1 μg m−3 PM2.5 concentrations. Median daily puff concentrations vary between 0.017 and 0.134 μg m−3, while maximum daily puff concentrations vary between 6.1 and 42.1 μg m−3 during the 2-month period. In contrast, median daily grid concentrations vary between 0.015 and 0.091 μg m−3, while maximum daily grid concentrations vary between 0.751 and 2.55 μg m−3. Future researchers may consider using AMSTERDAM to understand the impacts of aircraft emissions at other airports, for proposed future airports, for airport expansion projects under various future scenarios, and for other national-scale studies specifically when the maximum impacts at fine scales are of interest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→